PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI v. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

ITA 6625/DEL/2019 | 2016-2017
Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 662520114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAACP1009R
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 6625/DEL/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
Respondent ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags 6625
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 07-11-2019
Assessment Year 2016-2017
Appeal Filed On 08-08-2019
Judgment Text
1 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2016-17) PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD. 1106 VIKRAM TOWER 16 RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI 110 008. (AAACP 1009 R) (APPELLANT) VS ADDL. CIT. SPECIAL RANGE 7 NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI VED JAIN ADV. SHRI HIMANSHU AGARWAL C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SURENDRA PAL SR. D.R. ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 10/07/2019 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-38 NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYES OF LAW AND O N FACTS. 2. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING DISALL OWANCE OF RS.3 73 50 300/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLO WING EXPENSES TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED: DATE OF HEARING 06.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.11.2019 2 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 SR. NO. PARTICULARS CLAIMED ALLOWED DISALLOWANCE 1. WAGES 5 13 89 000/- 4 16 52 450/- 97 36 550/- 2. MACHINERY REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 1 26 71 000/- 66 08 700/- 60 62 300/- 3. BUILDING REPAIR 35 28 000/- 19 37 250/- 15 90 75 0/- 4. JOB WORK CHARGES 9 09 40 000/- 7 98 46 200/- 1 1 0 93 800/- 5. WORKERS WELFARE 19 13 000/- 14 12 250/- 5 00 750 /- 6. COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE 2 00 07 000/- 1 59 76 800/- 40 30 200/- 7. DISCOUNT ON SALES 2 81 35 000/- 2 49 90 000/- 31 45 000/- 8. VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 46 57 000/- 34 66 050/- 11 90 950/- TOTAL 21 32 40 000/- 17 58 89 700/- 3 73 50 300/- (II) THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED DE SPITE THE FACT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUS IVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. (III) THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED D ESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO BY GROSSLY INDULGING INTO SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT THERE BEING A NY BASIS FOR THE SAME. 3. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 06 20 125/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS TREATING THE SAM E AS UNEXPLAINED LIABILITY. (II) THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED REJ ECTING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS ALONGWITH THE EVIDENCE S BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 4. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.5 67 633/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INTEREST PAID O N LOAN. (II) THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED REJECTING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH THE EXPLANATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 5. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.5 13 810/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIWALI EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE . 3 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 (II) THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN CONFIRM ED DESPITE THE FACT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING OF COLOR MASTER BATCHES (PLASTIC GRANULES). IT IS A MANUFACT URES EXPORTERS AND SUPPLIERS OF ROTOFOAM MASTER BATCH COLOR MASTER BA TCHES POLYMER PROCESSING AID MASTER BATCHES CARBON BLACK MASTER BATCHES AD DITIVE MASTER BATCHES PRAFIL COMPOUND PRACOLCOLOUR BLACK MASTER BATCHES ROTO FOAM POWDER WHITE MASTER BATCHES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY E-FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2016-17 ON 16.10.2016 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.7 91 8 6 890/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WERE ISSUED ON 17.07.2017 AND 26.09.2017 WHICH WERE PROPERLY SERVED. THEREAFTER NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T 1961 WERE ISSUED ON 12.01.2018 14.09.2018 19.11.2018 AND 13.12.2018 W HICH WERE PROPERLY SERVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND FILED THE REPLIES FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INTEREST LOAN AT RS.5 67 633/- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.3 73 50 300/- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DIWALI EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.5 13 810/- AND ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS.1 06 20 125/- . 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 6 ARE DISMISSED. 4 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 6. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.3 73 50 300/- ON AD-HOC BASIS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCU RRED DURING THE YEAR THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLO WED EXPENSES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EXPENSES INCREASED/DECREASED IN PRO PORTION TO SALES. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT SALES FIGURE HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 5.62% I.E. FROM RS .3 20 49 20 000/- IN F.Y. 2014-15 TO RS.3 02 90 97 000/- IN F.Y. 2015-16. ON THE SAME BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED EXPENSE OF F.Y. 2015-16 VIS--VIS THE F.Y. 2014-15. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT WHILE THE SALES HAVE DECLINED THERE IS AN ABN ORMAL INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES AND THUS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE WHIC H IS IN EXCESS OF 1.05% IN COMPARISON TO F.Y. 2014-15. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE BOOKS ARE AUDITED AND NO IRREGULARI TY HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER QUESTIONED/DOUBTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR HE FOUND ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE DETAILS AND EXPENS ES FILED. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT GENUINENESS AND ADMI SSIBILITY OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS U/ S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE REASONS FOR THE INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED HAVING REGARD TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) DID NOT POI NTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENSES WHICH DO NOT CLARIFY THE EXPRESSIONS U/S 3 7(1) OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE FOR SUCH EXPENSES. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISA LLOWANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THUS THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT THIS ADDITION BE DELETED. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS: A) DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT WEST BENGA L (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). 5 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 B) LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. CIT 37 ITR 288 (S C). C) CIT VS. MS. SHEHNAZ HUSSAIN 267 ITR 572 (DEL). D) J. J. ENTERPRISES VS. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC ). E) VICHITRA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA N O.5047/DEL/2015 DATED 27.05.2019). 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSES AS THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. THUS THE LD. DR RE LIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDING WERE NEVER DOUBTED AND WERE NOT REJECTED. THE ADDITION IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION THAT DECREASE IN SALES A MOUNTS TO DECREASE IN EXPENSES. THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS WERE VERY MUCH PRODUC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME WAS BEFORE THE CIT(A). MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURE THE AD-HOC ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT ANY TANG IBLE REASON TO DO SO. THEREFORE GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARD GROUND NO.3 RELATING ADDITION OF RS.1 06 20 125/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES FROM THE CUSTOMERS THE LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY FILED THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOME RS ALONGWITH THE DETAILS OF CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT DOUBTED . THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN CLEARED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE SALES INVOICES HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EARS AND COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS FOR THREE FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 2014-15 20 15-16 & 2016-17 WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE D EMONSTRATED THAT THESE ARE REGULAR ADVANCES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESES PARTIES ARE REGULAR CUSTOMERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED THE GOODS T O THOSE PARTIES IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THESE ADVANCES HAVE B EEN ADJUSTED AGAINST 6 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 SUCH SUPPLY OF GOODS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THUS THERE CANNOT BE ADDITION HOLDING THE SAME ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. A R RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ACIT VS. MONTAGE EN TERPRISES PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.4014/DEL/2011 DATED 14.01.2019). THE LD. AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ADDITION MADE IS ON THE BASIS OF ARBITRARINESS AND BY INDULGING INTO SURMISES WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY COGENT REASONS. 10. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T PROVE THE TRANSACTION U/S 68 AND HENCE IN ABSENCE OF IDENTITY GENUINENE SS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE GIVEN ADVANCES THIS ADDITIO N WAS RIGHTLY DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED REL EVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE DULY FILED T HE DETAILS OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS ALONGWITH THE DETAILS OF CU RRENT LIABILITIES AND ALSO THE SALES INVOICES RAISED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND T HE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN CLEARED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THUS THE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE CUSTOMERS IN F ACT WAS PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT PROP ER ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). HENCE GROUND NO.3 I S ALLOWED. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO DISALLOWANC E OF RS.5 67 633/- ON THE ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INTEREST PAID ON LOAN THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE PARTIES ARE NOT RELATED AS PER SECTION 40A(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAME THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT RELATED PARTY DISCLO SURE MENTIONED IN NOTE 35 OF THE BALANCE SHEET. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OU T THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE LIST OF RELATED PARTY DISCLO SURE OF M/S. KLJ RESOURCES LTD. AND M/S. PRAYAG POLYMERS PVT. LTD. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT QUESTION THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN AND ALSO DID NOT 7 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 ALLEGED THAT THE EXPENSE ARE NOT INCURRED FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSE. THE EXPENDITURE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE W ERE OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME AS INTEREST RECEIVED BY KLJ RESOURCES LTD. A ND PRAYAG POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HENCE THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EFFECT OF DISALLOWANCE WOULD BE TAX NEUTRAL AND LEAD TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME IN COME. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS TO BE DE TERMINED HAVING REGARDS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH ARE DECIDED KEEPIN G IN VIEW THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE MERELY ON THE SURMISES AND CO NJECTURE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY BEHIND SUCH EXP ENSES. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: A) S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT(A) CIVIL APPEAL NO.5 811 OF 2005 WITH 5812 OF 2006 (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). B) CIT VS. PANIPAT WOOLLEN & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). C) CIT VS. WALCHAND & CO. P. LTD. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC). D) CIT VS. EKL APPLIANCES LTD. (2012) 345 ITR 241 ( DEL. HC) E) UPPER INDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD. 117 ITR 569 (SC). F) MOTILAL LAXMICHAND SANGHAVI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.3 110/MUM/2018 DATED 26.07.2019. G) HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1128/DEL/2017 DATED 14.10.2019. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO THE EARLIER SUBMISSIONS IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS COMPLIED WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 40A(2) I.E. I ) THE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED MUST HAVE BEEN MAD E TO A RELATED PARTY AND II) SUCH PAYMENT MUST BE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE MARKET RATE. 13. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE EXPENSES WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WERE OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME AS INTER EST RECEIVED BY M/S. KLJ RESOURCES LTD. AND PRAYAG POLYMERS PVT. LTD. THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE LIST OF RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURE OF M/S. KLJ RE SOURCES LTD. AND PRAYAG POLYMERS PVT. LTD. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER QUESTIONED GENUINENESS OF LOAN NOR ALLEGED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN FACT FROM THE PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURP OSE ONLY. THEREFORE GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED. 15. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5 RELATING TO DISALLOWANC E OF RS.5 13 810/- ON THE ACCOUNT OF DIWALI EXPENSES THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY ASSUMED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO M/S. M MTC LTD IS FOR PURCHASE OF GOLD ITEMS. HOWEVER IT WAS MADE FOR PU RCHASE OF LOW VALUE SILVER COINS THAT ARE GENERALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE STAF F MEMBERS ON THE OCCASION OF DIWALI. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SUBMITTED THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS COPY OF CONFIRMATIONS FROM EMPLOYEES ALONGWITH COPY OF INVO ICE FROM MMTC IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT QUESTION THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI MANOJ KUMA R (PROP. SHIVAM CORPORATE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES) VS. ITO (ITA NO.2350/DEL/2 016) DATED 21.03.2018. 16. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE REL EVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THESE EXPEN SES WERE DOCUMENTARILY PROVED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS NOT QUESTIONED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THUS THESE EXPENSES ARE GENUINE AND WERE PROPERLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS 9 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS. HENCE GROUND NO.5 IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 07/11/2019 PRITI YADAV SR. PS * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 I.T.A NO. 6625/DEL/2019 DATE OF DICTATION 0 6 . 11 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 07 .11 .2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK